[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

02791: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS SHOULD MAKE A ROADMAP to 3D Democracy !

From: "Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:03:19 +0100
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS SHOULD MAKE A ROADMAP to 3D Democracy !

George,
very good indeed!!! Greece is one of the most promising countries in the
field of DD developments, much thanks to your efforts. I believe that the
basic issue all democracy movements should focus on is the idea of a
Citizens´ Democracy. In all European countries except Switzerland, the
respective constitution has been written and approved by voting in party
dominated Parliament. But political parties do not have the mandate for
that. Ordinary citizens should propose their own Constitution and enforce a
referendum by pressure from below. That´s what we in Czech Republic are
trying to do. We should change the system, not only make marginal
adjustments.
Sincerely, Jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: "DIMOPOLIS.gr-ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟ ΚΙΝΗΜΑ ΑΜΕΣΗΣ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑΣ" <geoko(at)otenet.gr>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Cc: <direct-democracy-movement(at)googlegroups.com>; <georgantzas(at)fordham.edu>;
"'George Contogeorgis'" <gdc14247(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 6:36 AM
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS SHOULD MAKE A ROADMAP to
3D Democracy !


Dear Co-citizens of the world and WDDM,

I am happy to read your recent interesting comments on DD affairs
influenced by our wish for " MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS", but
completely unhappy to know that in Tunisia the people have won to push
out their corrupted oligarchic government and although they continue
asking for better democratic developments, sacrificing people in this
struggle, nobody tells or helps them to ask for a direct democratic
governance as an alternative choice ! And we the members and friends
of WDDM, ten years since our birth in Delfi, do not have a concrete
clear proposal and "Roadmap to Direct Democracy" to say them !
Unfortunately so many discussions have been made through the Internet
on several DD topics and also more ideas have been expressed
theoretically in our site, but all remain vague and not practical to be
used by revolutions or even DD political Movements all over the World.
Yesterday in Albania three active citizens were killed in a
demonstration asking for more Democracy against their corrupted
politicians, but we still look like having nothing clear and inclusive
to advise them to do for an authentic Democratic Reform!
I think that in my country Greece we 'll face soon the same
revolutionary conditions against the rules that IMF in cooperation with
Greek Oligarchies press us to accept, but even if our government
fails, there is no chance to make a real change from Oligarchies to
Direct Democracy, if we will not have a plan and serious
International asssistance to make it happen!
Therefore we begun recently to shape alternative institutions made by
Citizens in order to find our way for a DD change in Greece soon ! WE
first begun establishing an alternative Citizens Parliament ( you can
watch its works in our site: www.dimopolis.gr )and now a Citizens Court,
Called " NEA HELIAIA", inspired by the ancient Athenian People's Court
with 5000 judges, and we move rapidly forward offerng you a new site for
international DD cooperation: http://www.3ddemocracy.eu/. Please enjoy
and use it for your articles or advices, using it as a tool for shaping
an International ROADMAP to 3D ( Direct, Deliberative, Digital ) Democracy
!


George Kokkas
Coordinator of the Hellenic Direct Democracy Movement

Τηλ.:+30 2103648300 - Fax: +30 2103610882
geoko(at)otenet.gr
www.dimopolis.gr


-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Becker
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:32 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS

Agreed...pragmatically. I was just discussing the theory, not
recommending that this be part of your proposal at this time.

"Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 1/21/2011 1:39 PM >>>
I agree that random selection of representatives would be superior to
election, but it is a system belonging probably to a rather distant future.
I focus on a system which could be pushed through in the next few years.
Once in place, steps might be taken to reach a higher stage of democracy,
i.e. random selection. However, there are many factors we cannot foresee at
this moment. I belive that an attempt to jump directly to random
representation from current party-based representative systems would fail.
This could be one of the themes for discussion at the coming conference.
Jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Becker" <becketl(at)auburn.edu>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS


Excuse me, but there is STRONG EVIDENCE that randomly selected
legislatures work very well...and are TRULY representative of the
people
if we mean by that: demographically. All elected representative
systems
have elites that supposedly "represent" the people (please read
Edmund
Burke's indefensible address to his constituents in Bristol,
England).

Citizens Assemblies as at least one of the two houses would
complement
the direct, deliberative democratic part of any system.

Ted Becker

"Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 1/21/2011 9:20 AM >>>
Correct. But most people are too lazy and passive to want to
constantly
vote on all issues. It would not be realistic to try to put in place
such a system. Some form of representation will be indispensable for
the
foreseeable future. However, the representatives will be under
constant
scrutiny and susceptible to be recalled at any moment if guilty of
misconduct. What we strive for is semi-direct democracy with strong
elements of deliberation.
Jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: Hamid Mohseni
To: World Direct Democracy
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS


And what about people who like to manage the job themselves and not
employ others for that. The experience shows that this politician
managers has seldom been honest and soon or later has taken over
the
power and used it for their own egoistik matters.

Hamid



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:38:12 +0200
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS


Hi Hamid,



Having the voters making decisions on all matters is a waste of
time.
The politicians are employed to consider the information and make
decisions, similar to managers employed by shareholders in a
company.
The voters are the shareholders and the politicians the managers



Regards



Jim Powell South Africa



From: Hamid Mohseni
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:24 PM
To: World Direct Democracy
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS



The Swiss system is better than many other countries but not good
enough, because stíll it is politicians and not people who are the
leaders eventhogh people can stop politicians decisions and
propositions
sometimes.

Hamid




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:47:38 +0200
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS

I think the Swiss have got it right (mostly)



Have your politicians investigate and propose new laws. The
electorate will have access to all the information and can raise a
referendum if enough of them are unhappy with the legislation. A
referendum is held and the will of the people is sovereign.



97% of legislation in Switzerland goes through without objection.
The
laws that are passed will be created with the knowledge that they can
be
challenged, so they are voter friendly



Jim Powell South Africa



From: Hamid Mohseni
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:18 PM
To: World Direct Democracy
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS



As I understand real direct democracy dońt need politicians as
represents or leaders but advisors and organizers. Their job is to
inform people about political facts and theories
and organize refrandums and realise the result of refrandums and
decisions made by people
in common political and practical questions.

Regards
Hamid

> From: jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se
> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:06:18 +0100
> Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>
> Dear Fred,
> as far as I see, the model of PD you put forward is compatible
with
my own
> ideas, which are much more simple and only rudimentary. The PD
model is
> certainly worth studying. Íll bring an information about it in
the
next
> issue of my newsletter.
> Sincerely, Jiri Polak
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Gohlke" <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>
> To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>
>
> > Good Afternoon, Jiri
> >
> > From your January 14th post:
> >
> > "The basic fault ... is to call party-based regimes
'democracy'".
> >
> > From your January 16th post:
> >
> > "But I - and many others - also want a system where elected
> > representatives get continuous feedback from their voters who
> > can recall them at any moment (not only during elecions) if
> > the majority within the respective constituency demand it."
> >
> > Have you thought about the way Practical Democracy functions?
It

> > addresses and resolves both the points you make; the first
because it
> > sidesteps political parties and the second because it is
inherently
> > bi-directional.
> >
> > Political Parties
> > -----------------
> > Over two hundred years experience with party politics informs
us
that,
> > when politics is based on partisanship, the partisans form
oligarchic
> > power blocs that become an end in themselves and ultimately
transcend the
> > will of the people.
> >
> > Partisanship is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power
but it
> > does not foster government by the people. It results in
government by a
> > small fraction of the people. For the people as a whole, the
flaws in
> > party politics are devastating. Their cumulative effect
victimizes the
> > public by the most basic and effective strategy of domination
---
divide
> > and conquer.
> >
> > Parties are important for the principals: the party leaders,
> > contributors, candidates and elected officials, but the
significance
> > diminishes rapidly as the distance from the center of power
grows. Most
> > people are on the periphery, remote from the centers of power.
As

> > outsiders, they have little incentive to participate in the
political
> > process.
> >
> > The challenge of representative democracy is not to divide the
public into
> > blocs but to find the best advocates of the common interest and
raise them
> > to leadership positions as the people's representatives.
> >
> > To meet that challenge, given the range of public issues and
the
way each
> > individual's interest in political matters varies over time, an
effective
> > electoral process must examine the entire electorate during
each
election
> > cycle, seeking the people's best advocates. It must let every
voter
> > influence the outcome of each election to the best of their
desire and
> > ability, and it must ensure that those selected as
representatives are
> > disposed to serve the public interest.
> >
> > Practical Democracy allows voters to quickly and easily align
themselves
> > with others who share their views. It changes the focus of
advocates of a
> > partisan position from getting votes for a politician to
persuading voters
> > of the value of the idea they espouse. It lets every faction
select, from
> > among themselves, the best champions of their point of view and
raise them
> > as far as the size of the group allows.
> >
> > One huge flaw in the party-based systems that dominate the
globe
is that
> > individuals must support one of the existing parties or be
denied
a voice
> > in the political process. They have no way to prevent the
excesses of the
> > parties.
> >
> > Practical Democracy gives unaligned people a voice. Those who
advocate
> > partisan interests must ultimately present their point of view
to
voters
> > who may not share their view. This provides unaligned people
with
a
> > countervailing force that prevents domination by any party.
> >
> > PD allows, indeed encourages, enclaves to easily form and
attract

> > adherents. As Jane Mansbridge said in The Deliberative System
> > Disaggregated, "Enclaves are good at generating new ideas.
Everyday talk
> > is good at applying ideas and selecting those best applicable
to
common
> > experience." That is how fresh ideas are introduced into
society,
but
> > they cannot impose their will unless they are able to persuade
the
> > unaligned of the value of their ideas. PD guarantees that fresh
ideas
> > will be accommodated to the extent they are deemed worthy by
the

> > electorate.
> >
> > Bi-directionality
> > -----------------
> > Practical Democracy is inherently bi-directional. Because each
advancing
> > participant and elected official sits atop a pyramid of known
electors,
> > questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly
to and
> > from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the
official. This
> > capability offers those who implement the process a broad
scope,
ranging
> > from simple polling of constituents to referenda on selected
issues and
> > recall of an elected representative.
> >
> > If you are interested in these concepts, the process is
described
in
> > Paricipedia at:
> >
> > http://participedia.net/wiki/Practical_Democracy
> >
> >
> > I wonder if you'll find value in it.
> >
> > Fred Gohlke
>


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]